rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:53 am

Today's In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (R4, 9 am) is not, unfortunately, being repeated tonight as usual, as Messrs Brown, Cameron & Clegg have claimed the airwaves. A pity, as I think it's usually by far the best programme of the week and a second chance usually comes in the evening.

He is interviewing Saul David (oh dear!), Saul Dubow and Shula Marks on the rise and fall of the Zulu nation. He can usually get a lot out of his interviewees in 45 mins, but we'll have to see from the website or podcast. As a 9 am slot is not accessible for most, the lack of the evening repeat today is a pity. Going by the three guests, the "angle" is predictable but likely to be fascinating nevertheless. I have none of David's books, only one of Dubow's but several of Marks'.

Peter

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:44 pm

Peter

I've just listened to the podcast which is available from the In Our Time website and am spitting blood. David, without any kind of amplification: '500 Zulu prisoners of war were butchered' after Rorke's Drift. The truth: a few score seriously wounded were despatched by fellow Africans rooting through the mealie fields in the outlying areas.

Remarkably the other feller (also a Saul something or other) has Andries Pretorius being massacred by Dingane (it was actually Piet Retief) and 'in the low thousands' defending the laager at Blood River (it was about 450).

I am reminded of the last performance of In Our Time in which the good doctor appeared, which was on the charge of the Light Brigade, and the causes of the Crimean War were ascribed to control of the Suez Canal (which was not started until 1859, five years after the war, and not finished until the end of the following decade).

The evidence would suggest that In Our Time should stick to philosophy.

Regards

Mike

P.S. And I was in such a good mood after meeting you and others at the NAM. What fun; we should do it again sometime. Regards to all.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:33 pm

Mike

Just managed to sit down & listen to the website. I'll try not to be too critical as I know it can be unnerving to be interviewed live on the air (as opposed to in a documentary where you can stop the tape or camera and do it again). And especially by Melvyn Bragg, even though his radio interviewing technique for historians has mellowed over the years!

My first (and possibly uncharitable) thought was that Saul David should hardly be mentioned in the same breath as Shula Marks when the history of the Zulu people is being discussed, let alone join her in a panel of three. However, he's got to start somewhere, I conjectured, but my first apprehensions were fully realised - even though I readily admit that the remit for his own questions and answers was very broad and generalised. In fact, I think the subject was so broad that to attempt to cover it in a mere 45 minutes was impossible.

Saul David's "take" on Shaka astonished me. For a present-day historian who purports to be modern or up-to-date (let alone ground-breaking?) it was shocking. He may as well have just said "read Ritter." His account of the pre-Shaka Nguni and the effect of Shaka's reign on the region suggests that respected historians like Wylie, Hamilton and others might just as well have never written a word! Thank goodness for Shula Marks, who very courteously let the listener know there was a bit more to it than that and that more recent historians have changed the picture somewhat. Bragg's habit of hustling interviewees didn't help her but her contribution made a lot of sense. She tried hard to explain that Shaka's actions must be seen in the wider context of SE Africa and that economic causes were as responsible as military ones for the supposed mfecane, but he was impatient with her because it didn't fit his own agenda (limited by time) but if he had let her explain, he would have realised that Saul's contribution was so faulty that the whole early direction of the programme had gone awry, unless we are still in the age of Ritter. To limit the discussion to narrow Zulu developments certainly followed the programme's remit, but Shula Marks inconveniently but succinctly showed that approach to be faulty. Cue another sigh from Melvyn.

There were a few slips from the other two, but most can be put down to just that - slips on air. The "low thousands" at Blood River was a hasty guess when he was caught out not knowing or having any idea. Better to have said "You've got me there - but they were heavily out-numbered." He twice mentioned 1857 for Ndondakasuka but I suppose that's a tiny slip-up. I thought Pretorius was just another slip of the tongue until he repeated it twice more - very strange!

Again, I suppose it would be churlish to pick up Bragg for saying there were two battles on 22 January instead of three (it's not his subject, after all) but what ancient source was he using for "100 fit soldiers and 39 sick ones" at Rorke's Drift? And although there will always be differences in the pronunciation of Isandlwana among English-speaking people, why do so many move the "l" about? Saul David repeatedly pronounced it as Islandwana, and Bragg then followed suit, having previously given a perfectly acceptable pronunciation! (Perhaps SD has watched the film too many times, as Caine had exactly the same problem).

OK, these are all nit-picking efforts. But the 500 murdered prisoners at Rorke's Drift was an atrocious effort - not because it necessarily dishonours anyone - but because it is appalling history. He has mis-quoted or misunderstood his source and deliberately ignored a host of others which could easily refute it - all to fit into his agenda.

To me, the programme was saved by Shula Marks - I suppose that's why she was at SOAS and he's at Buckingham. What is really frightening is that he may be teaching students this nonsense. But it was far too broad a topic for 45 minutes, because any historian pushed to precis so ruthlessly while speaking live can easily be picked up for omissions or apparently unbalanced statements. I don't know if Dubow (Sussex Univ) is one of SM's former acolytes?

All - it's available on the BBC Radio 4 website, by the way, and you don't need one of those funny Ipod things.

Peter

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:21 am

Hi Peter

I too have just listened to the podcast. Good grief, what was this - Henty meets the Ladybird introduction to Zulu history?

Saul Dubow seems not to be aware of the difference between Retief and Pretorius; Saul David was, well, Saul David ...

The biggest disappointment was, however, Melvyn Bragg. This was probably the worst chaired of his programmes I have heard. I suspect, too, that he was marginalising Shula Marks, as she was not giving him the cut-and-dry sound bites he wanted. He certainly did not give equal time to each of the participants.

I was particularly interested by David's idea that there were "a couple of hundred people" (presumably he means white people) who survived Isandlwana. Where did he get that idea from?

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:06 am

I had experimented with recording this radio programme using a Freeview box and a disc recorder. Unsurprisingly it worked very well but obviousaly requires anticipation. I had not seriously intended to listen to all of it until alerted by Mike Snook 2.

I can only marvel at Mike's moderation and restraint in his comments since there was much else to take exception to (with which to take exception...?). I have in mind the SD remark " their first instinct was to flee..." then the bolstering reference to the suposedly decisive influence of Commissary Dalton!

I had always happily run with the idea that Lt Bromhead had himself taken decisive action to organise a defence, took some advice on layout from Dalton, and then took on some of the improvements suggested by Chard on his arriving from the drift to take overall command. One readily reflects here upon the old SWB piece of very appropriate regimental doggerel "Chard commanded Bromhead and Bromhead commanded the 24th".

Still for one apparently not entirely restrained by the inconvenience of facts SD has at least helpfully got us going on something other than that D----d man or, to some here at least, that d----d D---d man!

G

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:59 am

Paul

I have thought for a while now that MB is showing signs of wear and tear. This one confirmed it. The two Sauls - perhaps suspecting interruptions - gave brief answers and would come over as decisive. Marks, who knew the situation was nothing like as simple - quite apart from being quite different to the answers being given by the others, David especially - tried to give an accurate but balanced answer which can't be done in a soundbite, and Bragg hurrumphed a few times. Nothing like as abrupt as he used to be, though - he has mellowed enormously and has chaired some really good In Our Time programmes in recent years, and in Start the Week before that - but is now declining rapidly in my opinion. As it wasn't meant to be a debate but a succession of complementary contributions, it must have been difficult for a genuine scholar to hear what had just been said and follow up in the same vein. Interesting, of course, to think that she used to be among the "new wave" and once put a few noses out of joint with her "left wing" approach and emphasis on economic factors.

G: - The treatment of the questions on R/Drift, of course, was very shallow and a blatant attempt at perpetuating David's agenda, which is well known by now. Under the guise of new discoveries or a freshly balanced look, he has tried to dismiss Chard's and Bromhead's roles and once again hailed only Dalton as the saviour (a very unbalanced claim), as well as taking one more swipe at the film, as if the film is still seen as a standard account of what happened in anyone's eyes. For my part, I don't mind at all someone coming along and trying to offer a new look on things - but it has to be backed up by reliable material and approached in a scholarly way. The impression I always get is one of shoddiness - approach, research and conclusions, never mind his agenda.

Peter

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:10 pm

Peter, Paul
Hear hear!

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:40 pm

"The evidence would suggest that In Our Time should stick to philosophy"

I don't know but are we sure Mr. David is a good "historian". Usually when his name comes up I know something questionable comes up either in his interpretations of events or his handling of facts. From the looks of it, I'd suggest he's probably at the vanguard and perhaps an example of a new post-modern historicism to AZW studies where facts as such are not as important as fashioning a position to academia or the public and throwing it out there. He appears to wanting to be "different" in his look at various events.

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:06 pm

I have not read his book.
Could some-one provide a synopsis of his controversial points.
That would be helpful

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:15 pm

Damian

For all I know, Saul David's other books may be fine, but I'm mystified as to why he embarked upon a book about the AZW, which he apparently claimed to have researched and written in just a year. It showed. It's not as if there is any shortage of general, popular books on the war, good and bad, which have appeared in recent times, or that he revealed anything particularly new - despite appearing to claim to.

It looks as if the purpose of the book was to show us that the film ZULU had it all wrong after all. Shock, horror - stop press! So all those of us who have blindly relied on a feature film for over 40 years for the true facts about, for example, Rorke's Drift, are now enlightened - at last! It is full of goodies and baddies - Chelmsford the baddie for his arrogance and his cover-up, Durnford and Dalton the goodies who were either maligned or denied their dues by the baddies. Bromhead and Chard are also baddies for both being utterly stupid and taking credit away from others, as well as butchering 500 prisoners after the defence. Class, influence and prestige ensured that the baddies did well afterwards and got away with their crimes, and the goodies were ignored or, worse, badly treated. How could those nasty Victorians (and Victoria herself) be so unfair? (She was one of the real baddies).

And all of this was completely new and only just discovered and so just simply had to be told. No other author, popular or otherwise, believe it or not, had ever brought up any of these points before, nor discussed them in a balanced way, nor come to a sensible conclusion - and if they had, they were wrong. Amazing, isn't it, that they simply missed all this material! Yet SD could whizz in like that and sort them all out in a year. I went through most of it while thumbing through a copy in Waterstone's during a few lunch breaks when it first came out. I was quite impressed with the dust jacket, as the picture was a bit of the Fripp painting which I hadn't seen highlighted before on all the other AZW book dust jackets. It is called Zulu, but I didn't see a great deal about them in the book. My wallet stayed in my pocket.

As I say, his other books may be very good, but this one made even Elizabeth Hogan's efforts look scholarly. I had forgotten all about it until I heard him on the wireless last week - it was Ritter and Furneaux all over again. I've just reminded myself of it once more by looking at dear Elizabeth's "review" site, where Ian Knight actually reviews it very fairly, and an online piece called Zulu - the true story, by Saul David. (On the BBC site - hah!)

So that this doesn't read too uncharitably, let me wish him well with his other works. His Salerno mutiny book sounds interesting to me, and I see he has one coming out on BEF evacuees from France other than Dunkirk, which would definitely interest me - as long as it is not just after scapegoats. Then again, perhaps that's the way to do it - popular history books knocked out as quickly as possible one after the other, a la Furneaux and Laffin of my boyhood. Nothing at all wrong with that, but don't expect them to be the oracle.

Peter

P.S. To be honest, I don't think this sort of book - for all its errors - would get such a "bad press" if it wasn't for those puffed up press releases and flyleaf blurbs which claim they're the best thing since sliced bread; not to mention "friendly" reviews.

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:36 am

Gentlemen,
I thought that it may be of interest, and without any comment whatsoever,
to quote from a letter written by Arthur Frederick Pickard, Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse and Assistant Private Secretary to Queen Victoria. The letter is dated 14 October, 1879, Balmoral, and addressed to Sir Eveyln Wood. The quote hereunder is by courtesy of Her Majesty The Queen.

"My dear Wood,
......................................... Chard has been here, and left this morning.
He explained the defence of Rorke's Drift to the Queen, Prc Leopold the 9th Duke of Hess & Pcs Beatrice in the Queen's private room, and did it all very clearly and modestly.After dinner he did ditto to us in the billiard room on the TABLE, where Store & Hospital were Books & Boxes, and Mealiebags & Biscuit Tins were Billiard Balls.
The Queen liked his quiet unassuming manner and the modest way in which he told his story.
I gather from all I hear that Dalton was quite as much (if not more) the presiding genius there, as himself. He [Dalton] conceived the idea of joining the two buildings with mealie bags. before Chard's arrival on the scene; tho' perhaps Chard would have done so, had he not found it in operation. The inner line, which was their great safeguard, was Chard's own idea.
Bromhead had, of course, great influence over his own men, & kept them in their places, or moved them about, controlled their fire & with great judgement. Only 1 1/2 boxes of ammun was left when morning came, besides that they had in their pouches. Chard made no complaint but it seemed odd to me that he was not consulted as to the distribution of the V.C's. But it is only one out of many things that no fellow can understand. ............................. "

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:26 am

Peter

Many thanks for that extract. I've thought before that Chard comes out of the letter rather well. Others might not, but I think the army must have been full of similar men for whom promotion would necessarily have been slow anyway, who were competent, who had never seen action but who were well rounded, modest gentlemen. Separate accounts during 1879 testify to the modesty of both, an attribute which was essential for all officers and gentlemen, surely, despite the ambitions of some, and it is easy to under estimate the need for any officer to possess all sorts of qualities which we wouldn't think of as military. (Some may have said they had "much to be modest about" but Chard was a Royal Engineer and was not found wanting in the skills he showed, and nor was Bromhead in commanding his company on the day).

There was astonishment among some officers, in the aftermath of Isandlwana, that so much was being made about R/Drift. Not one of these had been in the fight, though. Ambitious young officers had a field day with their private gossiping and sniping. It is perfectly possible they were more competent than Chard & Bromhead, and may have been far more ambitious. However, I suspect much of the sniping in these private letters was picked up from rumour rather than personal knowledge. They ridiculed the behaviour of these two men in the days after the engagement. Had anyone gone up to Chelmsford or Glyn in the days after Isandlwana and examined their behaviour? What would they have found? And they hadn't been near any comparable action, but carried great responsibility and were, not surprisingly, in shock. Or Wood during and after his astonishing lapses on Hlobane?

So Chard & Bromhead reportedly didn't want to talk about it much to other officers they met. Did Chelmsford and Glyn, on Isandlwana? The two lieutenants were humans as well as Victorian army officers, and had not only been through a once in a lifetime scrap facing death for several hours, but had been responsible for every decision made. Officers like Jones appeared to think Chard should just have shrugged it all off and demanded the promotion in the field that was due to him. But he hadn't been there. Dalton's role is well known but he hadn't had to carry the responsibility for 150-odd men.

Both of the immediate reports of any length - Chard's and Smith's - praised Dalton. So did Hook's, although several of his accounts were from many years later and did tend to conflict with previous ones. Dalton's VC was awarded late, but so were many at that time. As we see in the extract above, Chard was not responsible for any delay. Saul David says Dalton's background wasn't right. Well, he certainly wasn't in a position to lobby, but nor were the privates and other NCOs who received VCs.

Keith Smith seems to have produced the most balanced and considered piece I have read on this topic in his "The Hero of Rorke's Drift" ( Studies in the Anglo-Zulu War). He comes down strongly in praise of Dalton's initial supervisory role in arranging the defences and gives full coverage to the criticisms of Chard & Bromhead - but without leading to any unbalanced (unhinged?) accusations of class-based conspiracies, nor a claim that Rorke's Drift was nothing like the story which every AZW student has always (of course!) slavishly believed, nor that he had suddenly discovered sources or occurrences which no-one else had come across.

Peter

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:41 pm

Just as an aside...

I am reading a new interpretation of the famous Alamo battle, "Exodus from the Alamo". I have to say I am in shock at what I am reading. Everything I thought I knew about the battle has been deemed to be hokum, blarney, bosh whatever. Last stand? Are you kidding? The defenders ran and practically did not put up any fight up whatsoever. Most were slaughtered to man outside the walls. Colonel Travis fighting to the last? No, he committed suicide seeing that the battle was lost. Just on a whim, I wondering if anything like this will emanate in AZW studies. I don't think so (but possible I think if there is a compendium of Zulu overviews of certain battle events which heretofore have never seen the light of day) but if it happens I'll know how I'll feel..... Wink

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:39 pm

Rich

I've read that about the Alamo, with 70+ men fighting/dying outside the walls, but although a few may have 'done a runner', I'm more inclined to think, with the compound taken, that they were pushed out of the immediate defensive area, into the hands of the Mexican cavalry.

As for Travis committing suicide - a damn disgraceful comment if stated in the book - he was a brave and too good a man to do this.

Is the author of your Alamo title well-known, or a 'mixer-upper' to create more controversy ?

Much like Custer and the LBH, too many approaches have been conducted, that have, I feel, lost the way the events happened and who the participants really were, not out of seeking facts, but either just 'for the hell of it' or more distastefully, a money-making concern, uncovering new (untrue) facts.

I hate such things immensely. Mad

Coll

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:48 pm

Let us please not presuppose from this that Chsrd somehow said this himself:

I gather from all I hear that Dalton was quite as much (if not more) the presiding genius there, as himself. He [Dalton] conceived the idea of joining the two buildings with mealie bags. before Chard's arrival on the scene; tho' perhaps Chard would have done so, had he not found it in operation. The inner line, which was their great safeguard, was Chard's own idea.

Taking the many accounts all together the idea of Dalton as presifing genius does not leap off the pages.

G